BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Just saw this petition (and signed it) in RSPB's eLetter. There seems to be a steady trickle of signings as it is now moving towards 8,000 - but a long way to go to get the HoC debate trigger of 100,000.

Those of you who are "38degrees" members, or "Avaaz" members could ask those organisations to promote this petition.

Meanwhile, why not 'spam' the other forums on Birdforums with this. I'll make a start with a post on the Ringing and Banding thread where I habitually hang out.

Yes, I have requested help on the 38 Degrees website, John.
Every little helps.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Morgan

Just saw this petition (and signed it) in RSPB's eLetter. There seems to be a steady trickle of signings as it is now moving towards 8,000 - but a long way to go to get the HoC debate trigger of 100,000.

Those of you who are "38degrees" members, or "Avaaz" members could ask those organisations to promote this petition.

Meanwhile, why not 'spam' the other forums on Birdforums with this. I'll make a start with a post on the Ringing and Banding thread where I habitually hang out.

I've just read something about where this has already been brought in in Scotland and apparently it will still be a valid defence for the land owner to be shown to have not known about the offences commited and taken reasonable steps to prevent it.
So doesnt that basically just mean all they have to do is say ''I didnt know he was doing it i told him not to'' and they'd get away with it?

Isnt that just the situation that we have now making this whole thing rather pointless?

I've just read something about where this has already been brought in in Scotland and apparently it will still be a valid defence for the land owner to be shown to have not known about the offences commited and taken reasonable steps to prevent it.
So doesnt that basically just mean all they have to do is say ''I didnt know he was doing it i told him not to'' and they'd get away with it?

Isnt that just the situation that we have now making this whole thing rather pointless?

My advice is doing something is often better than doing nothing - it takes very little effort to sign the petition and I don't see what there is to lose (assuming you support the cause of course ) - let's then see what the conservation bodies and Scottish lawyers make of it. It seems to be the case these days that Scotland and Wales have a more progressive approach than England when it comes to changing law.

I totally agree Robin but unfortunately I just cant see how this is actually going to change anything at all, not that it would anyway because we'd still have the biggest problem which is actually catching and proving that anyone has done anything before we worry about how takes the most blame. Like you say though nothing to lose.

"But there is no excuse for shooting birds of prey, poisoning them or crushing their eggs – these are all 19th century reactions. There are other solutions today. Whether the problem is real or merely perceived, the last thing anyone should do is reach for a gun. Killing birds of prey is completely unacceptable under any circumstances. Where populations of other species are declining we need to identify the cause and not blindly blame birds of prey when farmland and songbird numbers, for example, are down primarily because of habitat loss."